Net Neutrality perspectives

Look it up and decide for yourself :)

>>133681501
Take 5 minutes and read this article. It's the best I've seen: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447854/fcc-open-internet-rules-make-internet-less-open

>>133681501
>FUCK CORPORATIONS
>Gets all of their news from six international megacorporations.

File: 1493176774663.gif (2MB, 560x302px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 560x302px

>>133681501
>ladies will never woman-up and rape you

>pol is actually in favor of destroying the internet because people they disagree with politically are in favor of not destroying it

the idea that a board that is so heavily in favor of a free market wants isp's to be able to pick and choose who can and can not take part in the biggest free market in the world, the internet; is a level of double think so deep that it actually seems like parody at this point

I say get rid of it. See just how terrible it truly is with out it.

>>133682414
Yeah, makes me shudder just thinking about going back to the dark ages before 2015...

>>133681714
the simplest way of explaining this is the internet was created by the government the fiber optics and highways already established and companies that sell their service will throttle anyone getting in their way net neutrality basically saves us

>>133681501
Free Trade Net would work if there were more than 2 companies.

The reality is that current law prevents them from merging or setting up any kinda bananas rules they want.

Please understand, if we had 4 or more comcast-like providers, i'd say give it a try. If the government went and split up current comcast i'd be behind it.

Protecting net nuetrality NOW means competition can emerge LATER. The regulations are the only thing making freed trade possible. If comcast wins its the end of civilization, well be back in the 90s only more gay and more divided.

I hope they get ride of it and Chinese moot kills this place as a result. It's to good to happen desu

>>133682582
did you read the article? net neutrality was a common practice before the FCC made a power grab to "secure" it, with very very few minor instances of going against neutrality in the entire history of the internet.

using FCC regulations to "save" net neutrality is like using a nuke to take out an anthill. the few minor problems pre-2015 were quickly worked out between the interested parties or with FTC intervention. and in the meantime the FCC regulation has resulted in measurable harm to the internet in the form of falling investments

Reddit censors T_D (and other things), yet claims to be for net "neutrality". Fuck those cucks.

File: 1472179271384.jpg (37KB, 600x468px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x468px

>>133682020

>>133681501
>crying when you're about to have the best sex of your life

My on-again off-again gf gets like that, I could overpower her, but it kills the fun.

>>133683078
You lucky fuck. Id live in bongland for sex like that

Overall the options we have in dealing with Telecoms, Net Neutrality has the best tradeoff. It removes a good deal of potential abuse from the corporations (and multinational parent corporations) that own our internet while granting the US government an insignificant amount of regulatory power. Given how powerful our media companies are currently (both in the US and worldwide), it is extremely unwise to allow them anything but a "dumb line" when we've seen who owns these companies and the kinds of agendas they have. While they may not have done anything previous to Net Neutrality's passage, it's clear that Leftism has progressed to a virulent level and we're only a stone's throw away from these people finally eschewing political neutrality and going full propaganda and globalist shill mode.

The tradeoff as mentioned is a very minor one. The only regulatory power the FCC gains is one that allows it to decide whether or not an ISP is artificially modifying traffic in order to either block, slow, or speed up the connections to specific areas. This effectively allows the FCC to penalize any ISP that dares to say drastically slow down your connection to 4chan, drudgereport, or whatever websites they dislike. So, overall it's a beneficial thing until broadband/fibre op infrastructure gets to the point where you do not need to be as large as Comcast or AT&T to provide internet access and we can once again allow free market to solve these issues.

>>133683806
That's not actually the only regulatory power that the FCC granted itself.

>Under Title II, the FCC can regulate the rates that ISPs charge, using its supervisory mandate to dismiss as “unreasonable” or “unjust” any business models of which it disapproves; it can partially regulate the capital investment of existing companies, and regulate which companies (if any) can enter the ISP market; and it can impose taxes on Internet use, such as those long imposed on telephone service (the “Universal Service Fee”). What’s more, the nebulous “Internet Conduct” standard that the FCC applies as its metric for assessing abuse is subject to amendment at any time, for any reason; there is no certainty that today’s decisions will also be tomorrow’s.

>>133681501
>reddit having a popular opinion that isn't fed to them
every few weeks a new mod is outed for having taken money to shill an opinion
at least our staff are so disconnected we have no power over them
remember to change your filenames often

>>133681501
OP is baiting but the fact that there are actual people who will form their opinion about an issue based on whether or not liberals support it is peak idiocy.

Anyway, so long as ISP companies hold regional monopolies over internet service, net neutrality is necessary. Although there does need to be additional legislation to prevent the government itself from censoring the internet.

The notion that net neutrality stifles competing companies is deeply flawed because it ignores the other more significant barriers to entry into the ISP game. If you want to be a competitive ISP, you need to lay your own cable, which is extremely expensive. This is also compounded by the fact that dominant ISP companies have inked deals with local municipalities to prevent laying of new cable. You need to invest hundreds of millions in legal battles, fighting red tape, and laying cable before you can serve a single customer.

>>133684674
And here is the ugly end of the capitalist stick: Consumer or die.

>>133684674
>posts continuing to ignore the fact that neutrality was (essentially) a non-issue before 2015

Putting that aside, the answer to antidemocratic activities or barriers to entry is to police the activities through the FTC or to remove the barriers, NOT to give the FCC sweeping powers over the internet

File: Indian_feels.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>133681501
>tfw you are too strong to be raped by a woman.

>>133682231
>ISP fucks over people
>other ISP is /comfy/
>hey lets go to that ISP
It's really pretty simple. But the CEOs of ISPs have a nicer car than you, so fug capitalism.

We have neutral net too

>>133685426
>ISP fucks over people
>ISP has a monopoly on their area
>lol if u don't like don't buy nerd, free market

>>133685389
Sorry, that should be "anticonsumer" not "antidemocratic".

>>133681501
fucking sauce on image??

>>133685426
Nothing is stopping them from ganging up and saying "hey, let's cap our prices at X, and take turns fucking the goys".

>>133685509
Hi Kim

>>133684042
The FCC did not classify the whole of internet under Title II. The final rule update only included sections 201, 202, and 208. The first part of your objection is technically correct but the way your phrasing it makes it sound like they have the ability to actively regulate the pricing of ISP's, which they don't. ISP's will obviously fight any kind of pricing regulation if it's obvious bullshit and ISP's will have the resources to win those fights unless the FCC is actually right, at which point you have the ISP actively overcharging its customers anyway.

As for the rest of it, none of that is actually provisioned in the sections of Title II that ISP's were placed under.

File: norman.gif (22KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 320x240px

>>133685406
>tfw when your g/f likes rape play

File: what.png (130KB, 223x343px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 223x343px

>>133685772
>nothing is stopping them
>mfw a libertarian has never heard of anti-trust laws

>>133682495
What dark ages? I would have known about them if there were any...

>>133685389
>response continuing to ignore the fact that leftism has gotten so insane that 90% of our media is now actively campaigning against the right, promoting propaganda, and that it's members will use any tool available in order to fulfill globalist agenda and the destruction of right leaning politics.
You need to fucking wake up now. This isn't the 90's.

File: 1494561854735.png (295KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 600x600px

>>133682020

>>133683448
i just recently started seeing a girl that wants to eat my ass and have me hit and choke her during sex
is it a trap? she hates condoms too

>>133685389
>posts continuing to ignore the fact that neutrality was (essentially) a non-issue before 2015

Laws were built up as net neutrality was challenged. That's pretty standard.

Net neutrality as a concept has been a thing since the 90s. The FCC adopted the freedom without regulation standards in the early 2000s. The first real challenge to net neutrality was in 2007 with Comcast throttling bittorrent. The ruling on that case formed a legal framework for net neutrality. There were other legal cases following that.

Net neutrality only became a real issue when ISPs tried to challenge it with trying to make Netflix pay extra for bandwidth. This happened at a particular time for a few reasons. ISPs at this time were consolidating regional monopolies and had no fear of competition. This was also when streaming was becoming a big thing, and suddenly everyone on the internet is streaming HD video on Netflix and youtube, creating a bandwidth issue that hadn't existed before. At this time internet companies were becoming increasingly corporatized which would make them more amenable to deals over bandwidth and content favoritism.

tl;dr net neutrality wasn't a big issue before because ISPs had no real reason to challenge it. That has changed.

And you can remove all the red tape you want, laying cables still costs hundreds of millions and takes multiple years. That's a hard barrier to entry that cannot be changed. The only real solution to the ISP monopoly is severely fragmenting existing companies, which the FCC/FTC currently has zero interest in doing.

>>133686078
(it was sarcasm, that's the joke)

>>133686224
What does leftist media have to do with ISPs competing for customers? Is Comcast just going to start blocking right-wing sites and assuming that they won't lose billions of dollars?

>>133681501
>net neutrality
its an American cancer thing. Nobody even even dare talk about it here in Denmark.
You pay to have data transferred over the internet by your provider and that is all.
In the US some cunts have tried to say that not all data should be transferred by the same rate/speed and you should pay if you want not just a fast internet by fast by product to product. So you could end up having to by a "Face time license" or a "Youtube stream certificate" to get your service provider to move that kind of data for you. Absolute cancer.
The fact that you burgers might let the idiots fuck you over with this is amazing to watch.

>>133686335
The no condoms part is worrying but everything else might be ok as long as you don't leave serious wounds/marks.

>>133685426
51% of Americans have access to only one ISP. 38% of Americans have access to only two ISPs. The "the free market will fix it" answer is irrelevant because ISPs do not operate in a free market.

>>133686396
Why is it that Asia's shitty internet is 100Gb/s but ours is like 2Mb/s? What's stopping the US from having good infrastructure?

>>133685974
Cell phone companies do this though. Oligopolies aren't prohibited by law.

>>133681501
Shill cunt, kys

>>133685426
all isps in america have unwritten agreements with each other to not compete at all.
it's completely illegal and they still get away with it.
the us govt also gave them billions to upgrade the last mile links to people's homes to optic fiber, they took the money and gave everybody DSL instead, short changing every single american who paid for it....

>>133686419
>Is Comcast just going to start blocking right-wing sites and assuming that they won't lose billions of dollars?
>(((assume)))
There's literally 0 competition in most areas in the US. There is no alternative, and thus no revenue to lose.

>>133686482
has a way of working its self out, americas been around a while it will be around while longer. chill it dude.

>>133681501
I have DirecTV (ATT). They created new channels that shill FOR net nuetrality 24/7. Something is up

100% government control over internet is best way

Total control is needed

File: kneesocks.png (254KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 894x894px

>>133681501
In an ideal situation one could purchase internet access in a free market. In the US, thanks to laws that surround cable and telephone companies, there is no free market. Since the government has and will continue to intervene then laws should make sure that interference is for the benefit of the common citizen and not a handful of private companies.

Either we have real free market, not crony capitalism or if that won't happen and the govt has to get involved then it should be done in a way to benefit the common man.

>>133681501

>government
>private

If given a choice, go with private. Government can be better, but usually not.

>>133686600
ISP companies in America have zero reason to improve their service. Americans pay more for slower internet compared to the rest of the world. Faster internet required infrastructure investment on behalf of the ISPs. Secure in their monopolies, they have no incentive to do this. ISPs are investing less and less every year into maintaining and updating their infrastructure.

>>133686600
simple fact is in asian countries they are closer to the internet, because they're closer together. here we might be in indiana but have the problem where we are getting internet from new york or california.

>>133686858
There ya go. That should be the end of the discussion. /pol/ should be for net neutrality just for the sake of not shitting where they eat.

File: 1490671617569.png (89KB, 883x990px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 883x990px

>>133682020

>>133681501
>The fact that this is what reddit believes, with a straight face, makes me question their narrative
I feel the same way anon. This is the exact reason I started questioning (((global warming)))

>>133686926

rare

>>133686858
>There's literally 0 competition in most areas in the US.

1. That's not true (unless you're going by literal surface area, rather than population)
2. The FCC regulations are one of the factors holding back municipal ISP development. (There are others that need to be addressed also)

File: 1499909944739.jpg (147KB, 1280x303px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x303px

>>133682582
stfu
it's based on a hypothetical that has never happened and never will happen. It is purely government trying to seize control so that, over time, they can regulate a little more and a little more until they have the fucking authority to censor whatever the fuck they want.

THAT'S WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO

They get their foot in the door and then regulate the fuck out of everything to fucking death.

>>133686419
Time Warner owns CNN and has apparently not given two shits about CNN destroying itself to produce a narrative, why would they give a shit about destroying their product to create a narrative? AT&T and Comcast are also in the tank for the progressives when it comes to the national level. Why would either of them care about destroying their product for their narrative? There is no competition. They don't need to worry about customers cutting the cord. Literally no one worth writing about is going to stop using the internet just because a handful of sites no longer work on it, because there are no options that don't seriously impact the experience of it.

If you think these people care more about their business than their narratives, there are tons of progressives that are not giving two shits about what their activism is doing to their brands so long as the narrative keeps going.

>>133685974
our anti trust laws are ignored by our politicians

File: 1409085509275.jpg (154KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1024x576px

>>133682020
>tfw my first lucid dream was a woman manhandling me

>>133687355
People can't eat narratives. Go read Adam Smith.

>>133687367
Then the remedy is replacing our politicians, NOT granting the federal government more power.

>Net Neutrality made in 2015 by Obongo
>People uniroincally think that removing it will turn the Internet into some eternal hell
Ignore the shills. If comcast is defending Net Neutrality you know you're fucking retarded

>>133687335
Your pic literally only exists in a hypothetical that has never existed and will never exist, where there are (literally!) infinite alternatives. Protip: there are 0 alternatives in many areas. Only 1 in most areas (hint: collusion, perhaps you'd like too google about it as well).

>>133686926
Nice proxy

>>133687557
American education everybody

>>133687335
Here's what would happen.

The standard service that everyone already gets becomes the supposed "premium" service, with throttled speeds replacing the old standard.

Don't pretend this isn't true.

>>133687634
Not an argument

File: 1459318497927.jpg (60KB, 878x814px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 878x814px

>>133687557
>the internet is the same as it was 3 years ago
>>If comcast is defending Net Neutrality

>>133687706
and why wasn't that the case for all the years before 2015?

File: 1497641078395.jpg (62KB, 447x686px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 447x686px

>>133682020

>>133687317
Regulations are fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things when infrastructure investment requires multimillions just to step into the game. Most smaller ISP's are hurting badly because they can't keep up with the costs because of the major Telecoms will artificially lower prices just to fuck them over since they can actually afford to do so. Look at what happened when Google decided to do fibre at their rate. Suddenly, AT&T and Comcast could EASILY afford to sell people gigabit at $50ish. Notice how there's not nearly as much talk about Google internet anymore? It's because Google is facing the reality of competing with companies that will do whatever it takes to stop others from eating their pie, regardless of what they do in the name of business. So long as they can keep normies happy with video game internet and youtube and facebook and netflix and hulu and twitch tv and shit, ISPs can do whatever the fuck they want and people will still buy them while megacorps like Google even have trouble getting their foot in the door.

>>133687543
>Then the remedy is replacing our politicians
like drain the swamp? oops that one didn't work

>>133687722
In this case, it actually is.

>>133687543
Not an argument.

>>133687769
Besides culture, the way you use the Internet has not changed for the last 10
years

>>133687880
Nope
>Point out facts
>DUR AMERICAN

>>133685426
Here's the options in my area:
Fairpoint
Comcast
Hughesnet(lol)

If Fairpoint and Comcast decide to treat some sites differently than others, I'm screwed.

>>133687604
then what the fuck are antitrust laws for?
Maybe that's what we should be demanding.
Breaking up monopolies.

Just one more natural monopoly to bridle. We've already tamed electricity and water to some degree. The infrastructure of all three of these things only allow for maybe one or two lines to run to every house without a clusterfuck, so we definitely need some regulation (gov fixed prices)/deregulation (ISPs would basically divest in transmissions and just sell access basically).

>>133687557
>Could easily google the history of net neutrality but chooses not to
>Doesn't realize the 2015 net neutrality rules were in direct response to Comcast and Verizon trying to make content providers pay for faster connection
>Doesn't realize that every ISP is smart enough to play pro-net neutrality whenever the issue comes up to avoid being labeled the "Evil ISP Company" by the public and the media

>>133681501
Read Economics in One Lesson, a book written in the 1940s, to tell you how to govern the Internet.

Or just look up NN on the Mises institute.

>>133685764
Sadistic Beauty, a webcomic.

>>133681501
>Is net neutrality good or bad?

Depends largely on what you think the net is.

If you connect to the internet and think that it's a lot like turning a faucet to get water or flicking a switch to get light, then you probably think net neutrality is a good idea. The water company doesn't get to choose what you do with the water and the electric company doesn't get to choose what light-bulbs you use (yet). They pretty much just sell you water and electricity.

If you think that the net is like a private thoroughfare owned by your ISP and that your ISP isn't obligated to maintain the routes between you and every single place you might want to go, but only the places that are convenient for them to maintain, then you're probably against net neutrality.

Look into Interplanetary File System (IPFS). If net neutrality gets bad it will create a demand for wide spread acceptance of a delocalized internet.

>>133687706
Let's assume that's true (even though that's not what was happening before 2015)

>the law right now doesn't set the price for the 'default' service, so presumably the price right now is the market price
>ISP can now offer super premium internet service for extra money (and presumably more profit)
>ISP can use this profit to invest in more infrastructure, improving the experience for everyone
>As an added bonus, if a poor person doesn't want netflix or other streaming services, the ISP can now offer them a cheaper package that doesn't include that

jesus what a nightmare

>>133688105
>locked behind a paywall
Never mind.

>>133687335
The reason why it's a law now is because a major ISP tried doing it and got shut down.

File: NN.png (111KB, 1119x593px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1119x593px

>>133681501
>The fact that this is what reddit believes, with a straight face, makes me question their narrative.

>ad hominem
Just because they're usually wrong doesn't mean that they're always wrong.

>>133687771
HD streaming didn't exist and ISPs never had pressure on their bandwidth streams. Now with more and more people streaming huge amounts of video, ISPs are in a situation where they need to improve their physical infrastructure for delivering the internet. This is very expensive. With net neutrality, they have to pay for this themselves. Without net neutrality, they can force internet companies to pay to not be throttled. Also in the years before there were not a lot of major internet based content providers who could be shaken down for bandwidth cash. It wasn't an issue before because ISPs had no motive to institute pay to play and no entities to charge for it. Also see Comcast and Bittorrent in 2007.

>>133687998
Absolutely. Also kill subsidies to big telecom and do something about the startup cost of new providers (generally they'll have to be resellers, so perhaps laws that forces "fair treatment": not enforcing their own laws on the line/center being leased). There is LOTS to be done, legally speaking, in this area. LOTS wrong that needs to be fixed. Net neutrality isn't one.

>>133685692

The thing that drives me crazy about this is that bad experiences with your ISP are so common they're kind of part of national culture.

Most people, at some point, have sat on hold for forty minutes only to get some Punjabi who's two streets down from a designated shitting street and doesn't really speak English. And then they switch from Comcast to Charter and it's somehow worse.

And these are the people they want to have unmitigated control of the internet. Guess I'll just pray for Google fiber

File: 1495322859273.jpg (189KB, 900x1046px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 900x1046px

>>133688220
>Being this much of a stupid newfag

My head hurts

>>133688211
>ISP can use this profit to invest in more infrastructure, improving the experience for everyone
They have absolutely no reason to do this, no incentive whatsoever. You're missing the point. There's already a set amount of revenue to be generated from providing internet and they've divided it up among themselves. There is zero competition among ISPs.

>>133688220
You can find it on sadpanda.

>>133687837
It should also be noted that many of those smaller ISPs are downstream providers that rely on the infrastructure build by big upstream providers. They aren't competitive companies, they are corporate thralls.

>>133687920
You have been either living under a rock or are just some old baby boomer that thinks he knows how the internet works because the internet has changed drastically in the last few years and if NN gets abolished the only sites that will survive are the big names and a site like 4chan that is barely even alive at this point will get fucked in the ass

File: 1458418082895.png (195KB, 1135x1500px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1135x1500px

>>133682020
>mfw the first time a girl touched my dick it was without my consent and then she dragged me up to her room and made out with me while I was sober but she was shitfaced
We fucked two months later, shit was SO cash.
But also
>mfw the last girl I fucked used to make me feel bad about myself and I didn't want to fuck her but there was no other pussy available so I ended up just doing what she wanted with my body

>>133688191
IPFS won't save you since it still passes on their lines. Also it can't actually do dynamic content on its own unfortunately. It's really good otherwise though.

File: netnuetrality.png (141KB, 1047x870px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1047x870px

this sums up my perspective on it

>>133688251
This to all the idiots like "THE INTERNET NEVER CHANGED FROM 2015 HURRRRR"

>>133688413
>There is zero competition among ISPs.

Is that why I keep getting junk mail from the three ISPs in my area telling me why they're better than the other two? And why they spend millions on tv commercials? And billboards in my area? And random booths in the mall?

>>133688338
>HD streaming wasn't a thing before 2015
You are actually retarded

>>133688392
Comcast is the most hated company in the US. They don't care. Unhappy customers have no effect on them.

Why is net neutrality so important? Just get rid of these monopolies on internet, cable, phone, etc., and the problem will be solved

>>133688576
I hate to be one of those braindead retards who screams SHILL SHILL at everybody who I disagree with, but /pol/ suddenly doing a 180 on internet freedom seems mighty suspicious.
>>133688664
Because the aim of net neutrality is to prevent that problem from popping up in the first place.

>>133688614
Allow me to clarify then. It wasn't a mainstream thing. A decade ago only neets and autists used huge amounts of bandwidth. Now every internet user is streaming a fuckload over Netflix, Youtube, HBO, Twitch and every other streaming service. The scale has changed dramatically.

>>133681501
> Yes, goyim, hand over the internet from private companies with no power over you to governments that will arrest you for your racist hate speech!

That'll never happen!

>http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39692811

>>133688664
So break up the monopolies first and then we can talk about getting rid of net neutrality.

>>133688635
It's funny to see Comcast tweeting how they support NN but everyone just calls them lying niggers.

>>133688737
Then charge websites for the bandwidth they use instead of throttling their packets and making end users pay for access to certain sites, or just banning some sites from your ISP entirely.

File: bdeabce3eb7cb55185fcd601f66c98bc.jpg (538KB, 900x1500px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 900x1500px

>>133688707
>but /pol/ suddenly doing a 180 on internet freedom seems mighty suspicious.

It isnt only /pol/

>>133688664
You would need shittons of changes for netneutrality to be removable: you would need tons of options of all kinds in every area to prevent the effect where each company is just as jewish but keeps to a different niche, or where they collude (directly or indirectly) so that all the prices are the same.

>>133688707
/pol/ is for internet freedom, but the free market is a better means of imposing net neutrality than burdensome federal regulations. the conflation of NN legislation with NN itself is the only reason people fall for this shit

>>133681501
>>133681501
capitalism as a system is fine but has massive potential for abuse, and, like communists, capitalists refuse to acknowledge that human nature leads people to exploit these flaws for short-term personal gain.

the internet is like power and water. it should be treated like an absolutely essential public utility and be affordable without any restrictions placed on its use.

anyone who disagrees is a sociopath who wants the "right" to take control of an essential resource and exploit that control for personal gain at the cost of their nation.

>>133688871
Then someone can dos the entire internet from their single home computer.

>>133688811
That's what I'm saying

>>133688531
Freedom ain't cheap.
>>133688963
This guy gets it.

>>133688871
You have to think of the flip side of that though. If companies can charge websites for bandwidth, then websites can also pay for favored bandwidth over competitors. Internet companies can pay ISPs to throttle access to competitors to retain more users for themselves. The end result is the end user has restricted content access.

>>133685426
There is no other ISP you retard.

>>133688960
Which is why the free market tried to throttle certain sites independent of government intervention.
>>133688982
Are you actually retarded?

>>133688211
The problem you dumb fucking nigger is that in the usa
there are either 2 thing
a
monopoly or
a fucking duopoly if you are lucky
anyone who tries to enter the freemarket
get shut down by corporation

when i few cities in the usa tried to make public isp for a cities a few corps pretty much sued the city for trying to install fiber optics

most isp don't invest in infrastructure

we had for 5 fucking years wanting to get fiber optic and yet at&t will not install it in our area
because there is no incentive for them to do so
and just keep the money without fixing the lines the government gave them acess 2

it there was more than one or 2 isp
then letting the company decide would be fantastic but the reality is in the united states

that there is either a monopoly in area or a duopoly

there's no actual free market competition at all
even giants like google have been sued by isp to try and keep them away from their market time and time again
that a giant like google had to stop investing into fiber optics because of court case after court case since
the isp do not want competition

only a low i.q fucking nigger like you
think that the u.s has a freemarket when the
isp bussiness are mostly a monopoly in area or at best a duopoly which does not allow the freemarket to exist.

>>133689073
I'm saying do what companies already do and charge you for a certain amount of bandwidth, which you buy more of if you need.

>>133689089
I guess if you string random words together you're statistically guaranteed to make a good post some day, anon, but did you know that this only works if you have infinite time? Unfortunately I'm pretty sure you're mortal. You should try more productive endeavors like informing yourself instead.

File: 1496814376731.png (151KB, 449x442px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 449x442px

>>133688798
>companies with no power

I don't really get why all data should be treated equally. Right now I pay $74.99/month for 150Mb/s. I don't need or want 150Mb to browse 4chan. I would much rather pay $9.99/month for 5Mb/s and a $25 monthly charge to get 150Mb/s only while gaming. I could pay half price for the same effective outcome but as it stands I have to subsidize Johnny Two-fucks Netflix use.

>>133689205
Good luck ddosing the entire internet from a single computer, Neo.

>>133681501
Someone explain how the big telecoms are given this federal and state grant money to build infrastructure and then simply don't build it without repercussion.

Like, if Comcast legitimately built its own internet that people willingly paid for and connected to the net neutrality movement would have little to say.

But, given the government investment into information infrastructure (and therefore, taxpayer) the idea that a subsidized internet could be essentially taken by a private ISP is ludicrous.

>>133689323
Thank you for demonstrating that you're clinically retarded.

>>133688211
>>As an added bonus, if a poor person doesn't want netflix or other streaming services, the ISP can now offer them a cheaper package that doesn't include that
>He doesn't understand what a massive issue this is

Imagine a basic internet package that only gives access to 500 or so domains. These domains pay for the privilege to be on this package, which allows the ISP to offer it dirt cheap to the consumer. The internet is now a means of turning users into captives of money rich internet companies who control the content they see for those sweet advertising bucks.

You want access to alternative news sites? Want to explore the broader internet? Gotta pay more. Also those sites will load slower since they aren't paying their due.

>>133689410
Please explain how you're going to effectively ddos the whole internet from one computer.

>>133689089
Which is why the FCC only found four examples of NN breaches to bring its case. I'm not saying that the status quo ante was perfect. But we should eliminate barriers to a competitive free market rather than ceding control to the FCC.

>>133689282
>oh yes goy, the comcast police will arrest you and take you to the comcast slave mines!

No actually, faggot, the federal government will arrest you and take you to the for-profit federal prison

>>133689469
I'm all for eliminating barriers and bullshit regulations to keep competition from starting. I'm also for ISPs being required to treat all traffic equally.

>>133681501
ISPs need money to expand the infrastructure, they can either get this money from you (the customer) or they can get it from content provides (buyers of """fast lanes""")

internet neutrality makes internet expensive
no internet neutrality will bring the cost down and make it cheaper for all

>>133688502
Go to bed.

>>133689469
>Free market
How many times do you shills need to be reminded that ISPs do not operate in a free market? Over 80% of Americans have access to 2 ISPs or less.

>>133689599
>i give a fck about what the isps problem is
im going to kill you

we dont need your retarded ass

>>133681501
no becuase its a talking point only

SHILL

>>133689431
You're missing the part where someone is voluntarily choosing that package. If I'm poor right now and can't afford the standard internet package, which is better for me?

a. Having no internet
b. Being able to buy a limited, cheap internet package

>>133689707
if you don't understand that the ISP will make its problems your problems then I'm not worried about you trying to kill me m80

Net neutrality is a meme by faggots who don't have a understanding of networking or isp's. It all fear mongering, they spout a fictional internet packages like cable which will never happen cause peering agreements don't fucking work like that ever. NN supporters spout red herrings like blocking and/or throttling when it more a effect the isp cartel granted by (((government))) or bandwidth management. Bandwidth is a limited resource gentlemen, shit like youtube/netflix/streamers clog up networks thus slow everything down. when this happen have to stop that shit, this is normal networking protocol and where the point of contention begin.

Like ii said before about peering agreement they are the building blocks of the net. They regulate the traffic of the net between networks coupled with the end-to-end principle which give us smooth networks. This agreements break, and when they do network start to suffer and this is when throttling naturally happen. Thottling happen unnaturally when you have monopolies via government like most states in the u.s.

>>133686862
ATT U-verse basically leases out national infrastructure from other companies. Most ISPs do, but ATT Uverse is rather large in terms of range. ATT wants customers, they want customer meta data, which is worth more to them than providing 'internet'. If Net Neutrality goes away, those original ISPs can essentially fuck ATT's home internet business model.

>>133689599
ISP investment in infrastructure has been steadily declining. The issue isn't the cost to the ISP, it's the fact that they have zero reason to do so. If you want cheaper internet break up the monopoly.

>>133689699
Which is why I state explicitly in my post that I'm in favor of eliminating barriers to competition...?

>natural monopolies should be unregulated
>this is what retards actually believe

File: goandkys.jpg (48KB, 625x739px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 625x739px

>>133682582
im just going to come kill you little niggers
why the fuck do you speak??even for? you say nothing

nothing matters your stupid die and kill yourself

>>133685974
microsoft paid apple 1 dollar as a joke

>>133689835
>implying more regulations & government interference will break up any monopoly
>implying this wont just create more monopolies by pricing out smaller competitors

>>133689862
Retards also believe in communism. Microeconomics should be taught in highschool so people vote smarter.

>>133689808
we dont give a fuck if you oversold
we sue you you pay up the lawsuits
deal with it

>>133689707
And why are you defending internet corporations who have nothing to do with your connection? Here a hint for you all information on the net is free i dont use any paid service and thus dont give a fuck about amazon or Netflix.

>>133689966
there are no such things as monopolies in a free market with constitution laws
but hey FUCK THAT FUCK COMMUNICATION

thats what all of you godamn idiots OP especially say

i dont care FUCK WHAT YOU THINK

>>133689786
>A person's economic circumstance should dictate if they get access to a free and open internet vs being a profit slave for rich internet corporations

Why do you think this is a good system?

>>133690063
SHUT YOUR STUPID BRITISH DICKSUCKING STUPID MOUTH FUCKER WITH YOUR PROXY
IN AMERICA WE CAN SUE GOOGLE AND ANY BODY WHO IS DOING ILLEGAL SHIT

File: __.jpg (47KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x360px

>>133681501

The reality is that the internet and how its used is unlikely to change no matter what happens. The potential downsides are far weightier on the pro-FCC control side (pro-NN) than on the Free Market side. It's almost a universal fact that the free market can change quicker and easier than any government, for that reason alone you should be wary of any type of regulatory body overseeing the internet.

But then you have to understand the history of the FCC, it was created to regulate what we consider old forms of media like radio and tv. and if you look at these legacy communications, its a veritable late stage monopoly board and they can barely make money.

The idea that the FCC won't regulate the internet in some way is fucking ridiculous. And when they do, which they will, it could be 10 years before a lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court and then it entirely depends on who's in the White House since the FCC is staffed with unelected bureaucrats.

Companies want a small group of shadowy figures with their fingers on the regulatory machinery, its much easier to establish monopolies that will be harder to question if the FCC greenlights them. Greased palms get the gibs.

>>133689851
Then break up the ISP monopolies and then we can talk about removing net neutrality.

>>133688580
they're not competing at an infrastructure level and they have no problem jewing you for fees on the initial process of connecting even if you are not eligible for their services.
caveat emptor. the onus is on you to choose a service you can actually receive.

>>133681501
>the_donald is against NN
guess im for it.

>>133688531
these memes are halfway to ancapistan tier

>>133681501

Quick rundown:
Do you want corporations and the free market or the government to hold the power of the internet

>>133690120
>There are no such thing as monopolies in a free market
Which is why there were monopolies before antitrust laws.

File: 1494656216622.jpg (60KB, 1024x845px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1024x845px

>>133690236
But then you're with the rest of reddit

>>133689461
Inb4 he pulls some retard pseudo computer science reason that would be impossible.

>>133690186
this desu

The problem with the Obama way of doing net neutrality is that it is the first step towards the very thing people don't want, but done through the government, much like ISPs and local governments do currently.

I'm all for net neutrality, but it should be passed as a law through the Congress.
Not done through the FCC.

With the FCC method we'll see the internet basically turn into the same as cable TV in a few years.

>>133689599
ISPs get fat checks from local and federal government agencies to expand coverage or improve infrastructure - and the ISPs simply don't do either without consequence. Lather rinse repeat every ~10 years.

Your tax dollars literally going to nothing except a CEO's golden parachute, or a stock holder's dividend.

ISP, then, complains about burdensome regulations. Pays congress to repeal net neutrality. ISP then charges every service you use on the internet more for them to deliver content.

Your ISP bill might go down. Maybe.
Every other internet service goes up, especially the free ones.

Literally, the ONLY reasons a person thinks net neutrality is bad is if:
1)They're retarded
2) They're a paid shill
3)They're heavily invested in major ISPs
4) They own an ISP.

>>133689958
It's not about more regulation. It's about keeping existing regulation. And smaller competitors are being blocked out by the cost barrier of laying new cable and municipal red tape put up by dominant ISP companies. Even if you remove the red tape, the cost barrier to creating a competitive ISP (rather than one that licenses cable access from a larger ISP) is too high to justify entering the market space. The only feasible solution is to break up the ISP monopoly.

>>133689862
>bandwidth is unlimited

I take that not in this thread have been in a networking class.

>>133690120
>Free market
>ISPs in America
You keep using that phrase

>>133690170
Why didn't you answer my question?

>>133690216
I don't think that's actually necessary, but sure. A lot of this problem is going to go away when 5G opens up, and the FCC is already talking about much-needed opening up of the radio spectrum.

>>133690235
>they're not competing at an infrastructure level

Those goalposts just keep moving. And Verizon is trying to expand it's Fios service to a bunch of areas around me, so you're wrong there too.

>>133690120
what is microsoft circa 1990s?

>>133690369
THE PROBLEM WITH OBAMA WAY OF DOING NET ..

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
AS OPPOSED TO WHAT

AS I SAID EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS IS A SHILL

>>133690349
inb4 Frank shows up with his sage wisdom about tech/electronic's/frankenstein control's/Breyer's ice cream

SHILL TOPIC
SHILL POSTERS
SHILL EVERYTHING
SHILL SITE

>>133690186
Legal has nothing to do with it. I want a faster connection at the expense of the streaming internet company. Currently all the flack is on internet customers and nothing else its time to change that by cutting down regulation.

>>133690476
>Complaining about a company who will give you ALL THIS AND REVERSI for only 99 dollars
Hey I'm all for reasonable regulations but don't be a commie.

>>133682231
Jesus Christ. "$chan.org/pol/ is in favor of free markets, therefore they should support muh guvernent regulasion"

Perhaps - and hear me out - ISPs won't charge absurd prices and use bad practices because there are other ISPs that will be cheaper and use better practice if they do. Perhaps Papa Government allowing big corporations to decide the prices of the data they move is like furniture and housing companies demanding that transportation companies charge the same regardless of package size.

>>133690418
In rural areas it's simply not feasible for an upstart company to build the infrastructure required for broadband.

>>133690393
>Your tax dollars literally going to nothing except a CEO's golden parachute, or a stock holder's dividend.

they give you DSL instead of fiber. it's like how the conservative parties here in australia fucked up our all fiber national broadband network because they all hold shares in "Telstra"and want to guarantee its future profitability, they're our previously state owned main telecoms corp.

>>133681501
Jew shill

>>133688960
>the conflation of NN legislation with NN itself is the only reason people fall for this shit
>THE CONFLATION
quit lyuing call it what it is, THEY JEWED THE WORD

>>133690622
WHY CANT THE GOVERNMENT JUST RUN THE INTERNET COMPANIES FOR ME

>>133681501
>Is net neutrality good or bad?
Why is anyone even having this discussion when no net neutrality laws are being proposed?

Are you all going to call your Congressperson and ask them for net neutrality legislation tomorrow?

No?

Fucking worthless.

>>133690703
>get stock and make money off of'
of course im turning in my cable modem when they do this

you all can fuck yourselves with your godamn shit nothing you ever do matters

>>133690622
wishful thinking, you're a naive fool, they're already ripping their customers in every way they can. comcast's willfull billing shenanigans on hardware rentals is proof enough on its own.

>>133685974
ANTITRUST LAWS AREN'T ENFORCED
N
T
I

T
R
U
S
T

L
A
W
S

A
R
E
N
T

E
N
F
O
R
C
E
D

>>133690472
I answered your question with a more important question. You're essentially saying restricted internet access designed to force all of a person's actions on the internet to create profit for companies paying to create the restriction is fine as long as it is cheap to the user. Why do you think this is a good system?

>5G
>Radio spectrum
Tell me anon who owns the radio towers?

Removing Net Neutrality is part 427 of the Republican Strategy on: Fucking the Poor

Remove net neutrality, and a normal internet experience will get priced to a point where most people can afford it, and my most, I mean middle class white people.

Everyone else gets a shittier version of the internet.

>>133690825
W E N E E D T H E F C C
E

N
E
E
D

T
H
E

F
C
C

How about FUCKING UPGRADE YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE AS TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES AND IF YOU CAN'T DO IT ON YOUR OWN HAVE THE GOVERNMENT TAKE ALL YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE YOU BOTTLE-NOSED JEW DOLPHINS

>>133690825
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

>>133690850
>Tell me anon who owns the radio towers?
well, i own about 4k in a telecom etf

>>133690825
>our politicians and law enforcement system are so corrupt that we can't trust them to enforce the law
>better give them power over the internet :^)

>>133690850
I'm saying that a limited internet connection that poor people can afford would benefit them more than no internet

>>133690622
>- ISPs won't charge absurd prices and use bad practices because there are other ISPs that will be cheaper and use better practice if they do.

In most places in this country internet access is a duopoly or a monopoly. It is hard to shop for a different provider if you only have one or two choices who are prices nearly identical. By all means kill net neutrality but please kill all the other subsidies and agreements that prevent competition.

I am tired of the GOP trying to pass laws that they say are free market but really just limit the market in favor of certain companies.

>>133690603
>I want a faster connection at the expense of the streaming internet company
But that's not what you're going to get. The internet companies are going to pay for faster connection, and everything else will be slower by comparison. You'll get a faster connection but only when you're using it to generate revenue for an internet company that paid for it.

File: They-Live.jpg (51KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 630x420px

>>133690910
NO WAIT I WSA JUST JOKING GUYS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWoxUvWHtB4

>>133687706
Clearly, because everyone would love that, and continue buying from companies that did that.

>>133690974
WHY DO YU THINK YOU DESERVE MORE ISPS LIKE MULTIPLES HOW IS THE FCC GONNA SAVE YOU AND GIVE YOU MORE ISPS AND THEN IN TURN LOWER YOUR INTERNET PRICE BUT THEN AGAIN AT THE SAME TIME
MAKE A HIGH SPEED AND LOW SPEED INTERNET
BUT THEN AGAIN AT THE SAME TIME NOT?
I COULD JUST LINK RANDOM REPLIES IN HERE TO FILL IN MY EVIDENCE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWoxUvWHtB4

there is nothing wrong with net neutrality, it was hard fought for by many people and orgs including many here who were concerned about what may happen to the free and open side of the internet, the side that is currently being threatened by liberals and their attempt to legitimise every digital holding that they own, whilst suppressing the legitimacy of sites such as this one.
NN prevents the likes of (((them))) from suddenly deciding you have to pay extra to come here, you pay for your bandwidth, that's it, not subsidising the lining of some CEO's pocket with this thinly disguised kikery.

>Since Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu coined the term “net neutrality” in 2003 to describe the principle that ISPs should not be allowed to discriminate among Internet traffic — i.e., that Comcast, Verizon, and other companies that provide Internet access to consumers should not be allowed to, say, prevent users from watching YouTube while letting Netflix play, or cause CNN’s website to load slower than Politico’s — activists have maintained that the Internet faces a dire threat to the principles of openness and transparency that have long governed its use.

I don't see the problem. If your reasoning against net neutrality is that "reddit likes it", please give your computer to someone more deserving of it.

>>133688105
thanks anon

>>133681501
Net neutrality is bad for the free market

Does this effect non-Amerifats?

Can I continue laughing at them?

File: theylivec.jpg (10KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x270px

>>133681501
TALKING POINTS
SHILL THREAD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWoxUvWHtB4

>>133691218
It literally protects it you illiterate mong.

>>133690975
If this is true then wheres the everymans ISP today? Fast without any fluff. Since theres net neutrality surely google should be able to pull this off effortlessly.

For those just came into thread I ask you this, what do you know about

OSI model
Peering agreements
end-to-end principle
tim wu and his original paper on "net neutrality"
Content delivery networks

If you have firm grasp on the above leave the thread for there is only fear mongering .

>>133690622
>government regulations
>free market

Autism.

File: DBGANTIP2P.jpg (23KB, 964x45px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 964x45px

>>133691148
>SCARE TACTICS
GO BACK TO THE HALIBURTON CIA THINK TANK

>>133690969
You're choosing to frame the issue as no internet vs a closed internet when it's about if internet companies and ISPs should be able to take advantage of people's poverty for their own profit.

>>133681501
We need to break up the telecom monopolies either way.

If we break them up, net neutrality doesn't matter at all.

>>133681501
Doesn't matter but capitalism, corporations, democracy, communism, are all fucking shit.

>>133681714
(((nationalreview)))

can't believe this shit is actually getting posted here in a serious manor.

>>133691355
The ISP monopoly does not incentivize providing good service.

>Since theres net neutrality surely google should be able to pull this off effortlessly
Firstly you seem to be under the impression that net neutrality somehow makes it simple to build the physical infrastructure required to deliver the internet. Secondly look at all the attempts of major ISP corporations at blocking Google Fiber.

>/pol/ is so deadset on being contrarian that they're now against net neutrality solely because muh libtards are for it
Are you fucking kidding me?

>>133690974
I'm entirely with you there, don't get me wrong. Net Neutrality is just a means of enhancing this monopolizing system though.

>>133691310
>A free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government

?????

>>133691405
>offering someone a service that they can voluntarily choose at a price they can afford is taking advantage of their poverty

"I don't understand capitalism" - The Post

all govts and corporations have done when we've given them slack is lower standards in exchange for further increased profits, why would ISPs be any different? does nobody remember comcast and their shenanigans, even I, a humble western australian person living in a relative backwater compared to the united states, am aware how fucktarded your ISPs are, why are you idiots for cutting them any further slack?
Believe me, having positive feels for corporations is an idiotic thing, they'd sooner rob you blind than provide you a good service if they thought they could get away with it.

>>133682693
Current law doesn't have shit to do with why there are monopolies.

>Europe: lets have the city build infrastructure so that any company can easily feed cables to homes and businesses

>America: lets cheap out and not do it and "sell" a monopoly to a company which lets us get bribes

He issue is that buying the privilege of running a cable line to your house is thousands and thousands of dollars simply because local governments were corrupt morons.

Google "franchise agreements" for companies like Comcast and you'll understand why the whole situation is FOOKED

FCC is just using people's ignorance for a power grab

>>133681633
fpbp

>>133691637
>yfw /pol/ supports a future without net neutrality but in that future cheap internet packages only include MSM sites and everyone using it grows up to be a bluepilled normie

>>133691360
NOTHING was ever put in by obama in 2015 so we dont need anything now
i read about yoru shill shit from 2002

it never was net neutrality it was internet anonimity

if i dont know you you cant charge me FOR SHIT thats teh idea and isps cant treat me different than the next guy
but nooone gives a fuck about you or the next guy if this is what their job is
so DEAL WITH IT NIGGER

IM going to leave this topic NOTHING BUT TALKING POINTS and SHILLS

FUCK YOURSELF RAND CORP THINK TANKS

>>133691360
Perhaps - and hear me out - you should notice the quotes surrounding that sentence, and the fact that it's a reply.

>>133691637
they're just this fucking retarded ever since r_the_donald faggots and normies came here who are deadbrain faggots
who don't remember the time

when /pol/ was for this shit

either way if there is no net neutrality

at least they block this shithole of a site finally giving me a reason to leave this godfosaken shithole that went to
shit when redditors and normies faggots started to invade the site.


hope they don't bitch when their alt news source are block or made inaccesible

>>133691637
see here:
>>133682951

Ok, time for the real world to take precedence, I leave with the following statement:
corporate shills and "just because" contrarians can die in an antimatter explosion.

>>133691566
I agree a monopoly is killing the free market which i assume that if you kill regulation new ISPs would appear. It is simple though you use your old cable lines from your previous provider for broadband and google sets up fiber in their wake.

>>133691779
its not so FUCKED like you say

google used a sort of WELL WHEN YOU SIGN for their INTERNET they got you in some type of agreement that is bad for you but there is this fake cour thing they can do shit like that with, which there is NO PLACE EVER for it.

thats the problem. PROVE ME WRONG

>>133691899
>either way if there is no net neutrality

>at least they block this shithole of a site finally giving me a reason to leave this godfosaken shithole that went to
shit when redditors and normies faggots started to invade the site.


>hope they don't bitch when their alt news source are block or made inaccesible

Basically you're against net neutrality because
you're autistic and want others to control how you use the internet?

>>133691933
>It is simple though you use your old cable lines from your previous provider for broadband and google sets up fiber in their wake

You realize you don't own those cables, right? The ISP owns the cables. You may own the last mile cables directly on your property, but every other inch of cable required to deliver the internet to you is owned by an ISP. These ISPs also have agreements with local municipalities to block laying of new cable, which prevents companies like Google from laying out fiber wherever they want. Regulation isn't preventing competition in the ISP space. The cost barrier to entry and the red tape put up by established ISPs is. The whole notion that removing net neutrality from the FCC will somehow cause new ISP companies to explode everywhere is deeply flawed.

File: winkmoon.jpg (59KB, 577x409px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 577x409px

>>133691663
>we sue them in court
Deal with it

>>133691855
You seem mad son, maybe you should of have better arguments instead of conjecture.

>>133681501
it was neutral when the FCC made the internet protected by title 2. Labeling it a utility like water and electricity protects it to the maximum effect without the need for new litigation forged in favor of corporations

>>133692207
FUCK THE FCC ON THE INTERNET
INTERNET =COMMUNICATION
godamn talking points thread

File: kysfagot.jpg (31KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 620x413px

>>133692296
>be u and pretend this really happens
remmeber dont stop thinking about, tomorrow when your dreams can come true nigger

>>133692412
>be u
>sperg out in alternating caps about god knows what and the FCC

some here are seeing the fallacy and willful deceit of inflexible dogmas and ideologies such as what are commonly on display when one comes here.
there is no one true, right, correct way and this issue really is putting that to light.
the most undesirable person to any politicised group is one that is open minded and willing to consider views that do not adhere to one's personal beliefs or ideologies "just because"
free your mind, and if you really want to fuck with the establishment, stop voting 2PP, the one thing they cannot stand is having everything they do to get attention falling flat on its face, because it's frustrating to be ignored when you put the effort in to get noticed.

All I know is that smug bastard CEO or whatever of ~~~d==8Spectrum8==D~~ has a punchable face when he is so proud of a merger that probably won't provide any end user benefit. Maybe a few bucks knocked off.

>>133692207
>These ISPs also have agreements with local municipalities to block laying of new cable, which prevents companies like Google from laying out fiber wherever they want.
That cant be legal. This is what i mean by de-regulation. So what we do is we got to kill the FCC? Their website states they are for competition and growth. What is going on here in burgerland.

>>133692296
hmm
non-arguments
mmmMMMmmMMMMMmm
they never passed anything in 2015
this is you
>>133692338
your a SHILL

>>133692699
this whole board is filled with shills after the other day so the msm can say 4chan hates net neutrality

>>133692604
you jewed the word NET NEUTRALITY
if it ever existed

this is all talking points
you go on people not knowing and then you claim that people agree with you

ITS HOW YOU DO this WHOLE TOPIC Is not even clear or has one statement about what this shit is

and you guys are now desperate and amkign shit up back and forth
here example
>>133691360
add the fcc
>>133692338
always been here (fcc)

WHOLE THING IS TALKING POINTS THREAD
TOPIC

SHILL THREAD

i say what i want to you can relate or eat a bag of dicks claiming i dont kow what im saying and ill sit here and watch you
you are all such pussies

>>133692699
they reclassified broadband internet as a telecommunications service, bringing it under the purview of Title II of the 1934 Communications Act

>regulating the internet with a law from 1934

>>133692885
We're the ones who don't know what you're saying.

>>133692338
It was never neutral in the context NN supporters espouses. Private corporations used peering agreements and normal network protocols. Netflix start this bullshit when they lied about being throttle by Comcast when in actuality it was cogent when netflix broke their agreement with them.

Also title 2 is shit, that caused the ma bell monopoly back in the day.

>>133692412
keep crying bitch.

>>133687335
>Implying people today aren't so stupid that they'll just always choose A) and the company will ignore them or make token gestures until they shut up and the'll continue doing it.

I mean just look at the gaming industry, pumping out piece of shit after piece of shit like the CoD franchise. Yet fanfaggots still pay for it because they can't imagine a world without it. People complain a lot about shit they don't like but they never actually follow through on the threat of, "If you don't do what we want we're going to not pay you." It's more like, "Do what we want, we're paying you so just do what we want."

File: Suicide.jpg (164KB, 551x491px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 551x491px

>>133682020

>>133692885
yes i know its aggravating that now we have to deal with fake news telling people we now hate internet freedom because the kikes are trying to undermine our newfound power to influence normies

>>133692900
NEVER
utilities are not real utilities
cuase of some government shit

CLAIMS The free market will
be a monopoloy or whatever dumbass shit else
is all SCARE TACTICS

READ SOME SPEECHES BETWEEN PRESIDENT ANDREW JACKSON AND THE BANKERS WHO TRIED TO PUT A NATIONAL BANK IN AMERICA

FCC does NOT BELONG on the INTERNET
internet=free speech

FCC = NOTHING YOU LOSE the FCC IS A NATIONAL BANK OF COMMUNICATION
EQUALS THE DEATH OF COMMUNICATION

>>133693089
YOUR POHONES HAVE BEEN SPIED ON SINCE THE INTERNETS CAME OUT

GOOD LUCK WITH ANYTHING EXPECT FOR SUCKING THE JEWS DICK YOU FUCKIGN SLAVE

File: 1378176246141.png (325KB, 382x417px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 382x417px

>>133693089
>>133693116
what did he mean by this?

>>133693045
HOW ABOUT I COME AND KILL YOU IM NOT TALKING TO YOU YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT

I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT NOTHING YOU SAY

File: gubbsy.gif (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>133692956
BET U WISHED YOU HAD 2 COCKS SO YOU COULD

>>133692692
Ah but it is. And it's a major way established ISPs retain control. They sign "franchising agreements" with municipalities fir access to the public rights of way to operate and deliver services for 15-20 year periods in exchange for a percent of revenues.

These agreements all contain noncompete clauses, which stipulate that the municipality cannot re-sell, lease or assign use of bandwidth capacity or services to any third party (ie a competing ISP) that would generate any form of taxable income. Similar text also prevents the city itself from starting their own ISP, and allows the franchised ISP to dictate costs for a competing company to lay cable. Many, many cities are trapped in such deals.

File: yodawg.jpg (180KB, 707x457px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 707x457px

>>133693201
SO YOU CAN

>>133687557
Except for the part where there were other regulations since 2010 and the FCC has been upholding net neutrality since 2004

>>133689461
Have you tried not being clinically retarded? I heard even the dumbest abbo can do it. Just try it! I believe in you!

>>133693307
SO ITS LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
WE DONT NEED SHIT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE DOWN THAT SHIT SUE THE DUMB ASS CITIES
AND STOP TRYING TO PROP UP DEAD DYING SHIT

>>133693350
the open internet rules weren't a regulation, they were guidance. the FCC didn't have the force of law to secure NN until the 2015 reclassification

>>133693089
Calm down son and have some dip.

To add to this the internet was always under the jurisdiction of the FCC but local and state started making monopolies. This is why we need trump to bring the hammer down and push local loop unbundling.

>>133693392
I legitimately want to know how you're going to ddos the entire internet with a single computer. This is revolutionary skiddery if you can pull it off.

>>133692175
No you fucking Sape
i'm for net neutrality the dumb fucking faggots who believe that government line given to
monopoly and duopoly will allow for a free market to flourish are retarded

since there is no free market for the isp bussiness

if there was real freemarket in it then net neutrality would not be needed much but then against since isp own a monopoly or a duopoly in a area

there's no way for the free market to work

hence me being for pro net neutrality in the u.s.a

File: 1493604910055.png (8KB, 208x243px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 208x243px

>>133693222
>t. shill

who could you be?

>>133693505
Amazing. I think I've just discovered the first sub-0 IQ entity in the world!

File: i648gmqsk74y.png (440KB, 645x1260px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 645x1260px

>>133682020

>>133693490
no it has never been they can go to hell they cant interject any interjection is not allowed cause free speech

>>133693307
How to dismantle this devilish system? We could have competing fiber ISPs right now and then who knows what else could advance from that. No instead we all get broadband as a utility which monopolizes and stagnates growth. ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

>>133693442
KILL THE FCC
>>133693490
courts have jurisdiction to break municipalities doing this shit

THAT IS NOT IN THE JURISDICTION WHICH THE FCC HAS NONE
OF THEM ITS OF LOCAL STATE AND SUPREME COURTS
and anyone with a gun

>>133693642
PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME WITH YOUR WISDOM I WANT TO DDOS GAHREES MOD

>>133693442
My mistake

>>133693956
That's what I thought. Sad. If only google was usable by your ilk. Then you wouldn't make retarded claims and then backpedal while strawmanning all at once.

WHEN THE FUCK IS CAPCOM GOING TO BE BROKEN UP

>>133693490
why dont you STFU we dont need the fcc and never had it

>>133693490
>TALKING POINTS
SHILL

>>133681501
So basically you believe anything /pol says? Fucking idiot, you should burn with the rest of the normies

>>133693490
GEE THE FCCS GOING TO BREAK UP LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AGREEMENTS

THIS IS A GODAMN SHILL LIE

OH REALLY IS M LOCAL AREA NO LONGER GOING TO BE ABLE TO GOUGE COMPANIES FOR BUILDIING LOCALLY SO THEY CAN GET A SHOT AT LOWER WAGES OJN THE POOR FOLKS FROM THIS

?? SERIUOSLY PAID FRMO A PLANET AND SERIOUSLY PAYS UNDER NATIONAL AVERAGE I HAVE VERIFIED BOTH ONE WAS IN THE PAPER OTHER WAS A GUY WHO WORKS THERE
YOUR TELLING ME M8 THIS WILL END IF THIS NET NEUTRALITY PASSES RIGHT
HAHAHAHAHAHA
FUCK YOU FBI SHILL

DIE ILL KILL YOU MYSELF

>>133694134
But how else will the giant ISP conglomerates survive if they cant regulate the system? Please think of AOL+ Time warner ;[ their shareholders need that fun money.

>>133691637
I just don't want the FCC in charge of the internet
I want Comcast broken up

THEIR MAIN POINT IS TO NOT TALK ABOUT WHAT IT IS

>>133693853
>>133693951
Sorry my auto correct fucked up. I meant FTC not FCC

>>133694370
ILL NEVER GET MY INTERNET OH MY GOD
SCARE TACTIC
SHILL THREAD
TALKING POINTS

IFVERYBODY DOESN TFUCKING DIE ILL KILL YOU MYSELF

>>133694438
I DONT CARE NIGGER READ WHAT THE FUCK THEY SAY AND EITHER ONE IS WRONG AND YOU ARE TOO

Why the fuck is everyone freaking out about Net Neutrality anyway? We have this dumb conversation yearly.

HEY EVERYBODY LETS HAVE ANTHER

TALKING POINTS

THREAD WHERE WE DONT TALK ABOUT WHAT IT IS OR WHAT WHERE TALKING ABOUT
>>133694462
FUCK THIS SHIT

EVERY THREAD ON HERE IS LIKE THIS SHIT
OVER AND OVER
TALKING POINTS THREAD

File: ripstream sam.png (269KB, 592x533px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 592x533px

This is what anti NN "people" actually believe

>>133682414
Wasn't that why we voted for trump?

File: none of this matters.jpg (75KB, 600x404px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x404px

>>133694645
I personally don't give a fuck what happens, none of this shit matters

>>133694569
lel.
Its every 4-8 years depending if the new president shakes up of the status quo. And its never going to end as the scam of profit vs growth is played against us long as the FCC remains standing.

>>133686482
But that's wrong, you retard. T-mobile is an ISP. Verizon, ATT, Sprint are ISPs. Sonic.net is rolling out fiber in my metro area. We've never had so much healthy competition in the ISP space. Net Neutrality is a BUZZWORD. Name a single ISP in America blocking access to /pol/.

File: bpeqhnbl.jpg (95KB, 640x396px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 640x396px

>>133681501
Those pictures you see showing off the Internet as packages or websites probably isn't that far from the truth. That is, the idea may come to pass as websites use more and more bandwidth, but it will not happen right away. Net neutrality is the idea of having access to an unimpeded bandwidth that can not be sped up or throttled no matter what you use it for. Think using water to drink and to water your lawn. Isp's want to charge more for websites that use bandwidth to fill up their pool than for those that use it to drink, if you catch my drift. I suspect this will manifest at first as isp's charging websites directly and those websites pushing the cost on consumers but it will slowly twist and turn until websites are available for purchase in the same was cable packages are.

Pic related, however it won't happen for a few years at least and even then I suspect it's a gross exaggeration.

>>133694645
> WE CANT HAVE TRADING WITH OUT GOVERNMENT AND NEW ABC ORGANIZATIOS POPPING UP
>>133694370
WAH WAH WAHHHHH
>>133693902
>>133693515


WHY THE FUCK
NOTHING BUT TALKING POINTS

YOU GUYS HAVE NO REASON TO BE HERE
NONE OF YOU

>>133682020
Welp, time to commit sudoku with a hammer

It will be the last retarded thing I ever do

>>133694820
we literally had this shit last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, hell I remember when people were rightfully losing their shit over SOPA

>>133694974
WAHH MY MONOPOLIES
GIVE ME A NEW ABC ORGANIZATION
SO I CAN FEEL LIKE IM IN PRE-SCHOOL
READING THE LTTERS ON TEH WALL I DONT HAVE TO READ
CAUSE I CANT

>>133695015
What the fuck are you sperging on about, I asked why we are even having this net neutrality conversation to begin with, considering nothing has fucking happened.

>>133688392
The point is, we should figure out how to make it more competitive so Comcast isn't the only option for people.

>>133695179
we should start by breaking up Comcast

File: kysfaggot.jpg (36KB, 750x540px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 750x540px

>>133695125
BECAUSE WE SHUT DOWN SITES AND STUFF IS WHY
NOTHING
HAPPENED
SO SHUT THE FUCK UP SHILL WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE

AINT U GOT A TRUCK TO GET BACK IN?

Net nutrality is needed. Trump is wrong in wanting it gone. He wants to control it.

>>133682951
okay but how does this new net neutrality exactly hurt smaller businesses? my leftist cunt friend always says "smaller businesses shouldn't be throttling so how does this hurt them?"

i don't get it how do i reeeeeeeeespond?

File: obey.jpg (158KB, 1212x864px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1212x864px

>>133695388
evil monopolizers will get us

preaise government for getting us out of that CENTRAL BANK
called the
FEDERAL RESERVE
WHEEEWWWWW JUST THINK

>>133688185
If you think those are the only two ways to think about it, you may need to go back to r*ddit.

>>133695361
Are you literally retarded? I'm not for or against it, I don't fucking care about it because there's literally nothing we can do, and it's not worth getting worked up over.

File: B8.png (76KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 625x626px

>>133694363
>>133694462
>>133694518
>>133694580
>>133694963
>>133695015
>>133695361

>>133694895
>I am not hungry therefore world hunger is solved.

They don't because they can't and if they remove net neutrality, they will.

File: NetNeutralityWebsite.png (489KB, 1801x321px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 1801x321px

>>133681501
Here's what you can see on the frontpage of the official Net Neutrality website.
https://www.battleforthenet.com/

File: Pajeet.jpg (65KB, 800x560px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x560px

>>133694134
How does this picture make you feel knowing this man controls your internet?
>>133694974
Well the monopolies want to expand and make more money so they need to trick us unto giving up some aspect of freedom each time. Now they want to make money after expanding under NN i assume.

>>133695224
Comcast would shape up or lose customers if they weren't the only service. Cities should run their own ISP or give incentives for companies to come.

>>133682951
aka
>>133695461
its TALKING POINTS

how can they control free speech? By TELLING YOU EXACTLY WHAT TO SAY

how can THEY TELL YOU TO DO ANYTHING?

THIS THREAD IS TALKING POINTS

that picture btw first guy si what i was saying
network neutrality.
my netowrk is neutral im anonymous im only givign myinformation out on my own terms
i own MY IP ADDRESS
I CAN HOST SITES FROM THIS COMPUTER

WHO CAN STOP ME?

WHat will the alphabet thign TELL ME ????

>>133694895
Firstly those numbers come from the FCC's own data on broadband access in 2016. We're also talking about wired connections.

Secondly, Sonic is only able to roll out fiber because of a partnership deal it has with AT&T. It is not an independent, competitive company in the wired connection space.

>Name a single ISP in America blocking access to /pol/
>Net neutrality isn't necessary because something that net neutrality prevents isn't happening
Also blocking single websites isn't likely. It's more likely websites will be put in broad categories that are limited by different paywalls based on number of hits and content.

>>133695559
ITS BEING SHILLED THEYRE CALLING FOR IT
THAT SHIT PASSED IN 2015 I DONT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IT WAS BUT IT WAS UNDER
NIGGEREREREROROOROROBAMA HUSSEIN BARRACK

americans and their shitty internet....

>>133695698
>duh i think there should be a fiat currency called the greenback that america should control
another talking points shill poster

>>133695731
..what...

so what do i say??